My suggestion might not be to everyone's liking but it is rooted in science of machine and social information systems. Or it's just a lot of technobabble. Anyway, here goes nothing:
Add a "report to the moderators" button - which seems to be missing - and provide only two options - "off-topic" and "other". Just those two - that's on purpose. You need to restrict any alternative to a binary (yes/no).
Once you have the report button add an algorithm that generates the following stats for every user: (1) posts, (2) reported posts, (3) reports which are created by users' actions and (4) actionable reports which is whenever you move or delete a post that users reported.
Then divide topics into "mode" categories - (a) very heavily moderated news and media, (b) heavily moderated technical discussion, (c) loosely moderated free discussion. They can be separate parts of the forum or just tags on the threads - depending on what is easier for the engine. In (a) everything that is not a submission with information and link is off-topic. In (b) anything that is not focused on data, facts or is sourced is off-topic. In (c) anything that is not blatantly off-topic is on topic. All discussion has to take place in (c), all specific technical discussion can take place in (b) but also in (c) and (a) is only for submissions. It is important that (a) and (b) are heavily moderated while (c) is not because this is yet another binary - a kind of "gate" that will channel information in the system. In (c) the users will show their true face.
Then have the system generate the stats on posts in (a), (b) and (c) category as well as share of posts in main topics - china military, world military, politics, members' club etc.
From those two you will have the following parameters:
(1)/(3) ratio - indicating whether a user prefers to write posts or report others' posts
(4)/(3) ratio - indicating whether a user is abusing report button
(a)+(b)/(c) ratio - indicating whether a user prefers fact-based or opinion-based discussion.
(1)/(2) ratio will be misleading because of false reports. This is why the system should not only indicate who wrote the reported post but also who reported it.
Once you receive a report you look up both the reported user and the users who reported the post and get the relevant ratios. You see whether it is a habitual troublemaker or an accidental rule violation. That should be the main evidence for your further actions because it will constitute the simplest "psychological profile".
Humans are creatures of neurophysiological conditioning and our parasocial interaction online reflects our social habits, only with less inhibition. Online behavior directly corresponds to personality and personality and resulting behavior have almost perfect causation.
Those who break rules as a rule do it because their personality is conflict-oriented, anti-social and egotistical. Such individuals do not seek exchange of opinions or consensus but conflict and domination of their social group. Everyone else tends to follow accepted rules or consensus and if they break the rules, they are usually aware of that and will adjust if given the opportunity. In psychology and psychiatry such traits are described in various ways but the best definition to match online behavior is "narcissism".
Studies consistently demonstrate that internet trolls and toxic users are highly narcissistic individuals. Such individuals won't change their behavior and will only control it if there's a direct benefit. Narcissists are social equivalents of predators or parasites. The only way to handle them is to get rid of them just like you get rid of pests.
Narcissism is not a "character" or "attitude" or "behavior". It is a very serious mental illness, specifically a dysregulation of the limbic system that is necessary for many serious traditional mental illnesses like schizophrenia for example. It is also the main cause of predatory and malignant behavior in humans including pathological lying.
Discussion is a interaction with rules. Either you want to abide by the rules or want to bend the rules to your benefit. A binary. No other option. There's a personality that will bend the rules and a personality that will uphold them. That's straight out of individual perception of reality and social networks. Again a binary. All those binaries form the network of networks through which information flows.
So to maintain a healthy community and website centered around an on-topic constructive discussion you have to maintain two elements:
- clear rules of discussion (subject, focus, style) - rules of the game
- lack of narcissistic individuals - predators and parasites
The above rules worked very well on a few discussion boards that I've used over the last 20+ years and from what I can tell the only discussion boards which resisted erosion and entropy are the ones which applied those rules in some form or another.
As for other suggestions mentioned in this thread:
The only thing that results from more moderators is more conflict and instability because moderators determine rules of the game (in game-theoretical sense) and the more moderators the greater the uncertainty (entropy) which causes the system to be less rather than more controlled. This is why growing bureaucracies trend toward inefficiency and inefficacy regardless of how many departments and specialists and surveys they have. It's not "invasion of the normies" that kills websites. Websites which manage with the "core" moderator team even at the cost of not growing proportionally do better than those who grow and have to add moderators. It's the moderators who sink the website, not the users, and the explanation is straight out of cybernetics and information theory. People just confuse the cause with the effect because our intuition is geared toward understanding of interpersonal social cues in small groups, not the social equivalent of fluid dynamics.
The only thing that results from voting systems is mob mentality because vote-based ranking drives narcissists crazy since it feeds directly to their dopamine and serotonin systems. Just look at reddit or twitter. They seem like mental asylums because mentally ill people are being catered to with architecture that is increasingly representing what psychosis is. The userbase is therefore shifting away from healthy people toward unhealthy people. In my experience people who advocate for dynamics that feed into mob mentality tend to have those traits as well. Physical reality is not about popularity. It is about a simple binary - "follows the rules" and "doesn't follow the rules". The people who want to make everything about subjective opinion of other people tend to be people who think their subjective opinion is valid.
This forum here works - at least compared to other websites - because it's more like a library than a market square.
Libraries are about catalogs of books, authors, members and clear and logical order of things and the main thing that is being said outloud there is "shhhhhhhhhh". The rest is up to the users of the library.That's why libraries have been the temples of knowledge and preservers of civilization. Small group of librarians handling huge amount of data and everyone having access but only according to stringent rules. Low entropy.
Market squares are all about being in the center of people's attention and are filled with people screaming things, arguing, selling, buying, stealing and getting pilloried. And it's only a question of time before you have a bunch of know-it-all's screaming to their followers why they should go and kill those people over there on the other side of the market square. Complete chaos. High entropy.
We should want to keep SDF as a library rather than try to turn it into a market square.
And if you are still not convincend then remember that I'm a wizard. I fought Balrogs and sh*t and know a lot about throwing magic rings into volcanoes, flying on mutant eagles and running away from mobs of goblins. Clearly at least some of it is relevant experience.
Add a "report to the moderators" button - which seems to be missing - and provide only two options - "off-topic" and "other". Just those two - that's on purpose. You need to restrict any alternative to a binary (yes/no).
Once you have the report button add an algorithm that generates the following stats for every user: (1) posts, (2) reported posts, (3) reports which are created by users' actions and (4) actionable reports which is whenever you move or delete a post that users reported.
Then divide topics into "mode" categories - (a) very heavily moderated news and media, (b) heavily moderated technical discussion, (c) loosely moderated free discussion. They can be separate parts of the forum or just tags on the threads - depending on what is easier for the engine. In (a) everything that is not a submission with information and link is off-topic. In (b) anything that is not focused on data, facts or is sourced is off-topic. In (c) anything that is not blatantly off-topic is on topic. All discussion has to take place in (c), all specific technical discussion can take place in (b) but also in (c) and (a) is only for submissions. It is important that (a) and (b) are heavily moderated while (c) is not because this is yet another binary - a kind of "gate" that will channel information in the system. In (c) the users will show their true face.
Then have the system generate the stats on posts in (a), (b) and (c) category as well as share of posts in main topics - china military, world military, politics, members' club etc.
From those two you will have the following parameters:
(1)/(3) ratio - indicating whether a user prefers to write posts or report others' posts
(4)/(3) ratio - indicating whether a user is abusing report button
(a)+(b)/(c) ratio - indicating whether a user prefers fact-based or opinion-based discussion.
(1)/(2) ratio will be misleading because of false reports. This is why the system should not only indicate who wrote the reported post but also who reported it.
Once you receive a report you look up both the reported user and the users who reported the post and get the relevant ratios. You see whether it is a habitual troublemaker or an accidental rule violation. That should be the main evidence for your further actions because it will constitute the simplest "psychological profile".
Humans are creatures of neurophysiological conditioning and our parasocial interaction online reflects our social habits, only with less inhibition. Online behavior directly corresponds to personality and personality and resulting behavior have almost perfect causation.
Those who break rules as a rule do it because their personality is conflict-oriented, anti-social and egotistical. Such individuals do not seek exchange of opinions or consensus but conflict and domination of their social group. Everyone else tends to follow accepted rules or consensus and if they break the rules, they are usually aware of that and will adjust if given the opportunity. In psychology and psychiatry such traits are described in various ways but the best definition to match online behavior is "narcissism".
Studies consistently demonstrate that internet trolls and toxic users are highly narcissistic individuals. Such individuals won't change their behavior and will only control it if there's a direct benefit. Narcissists are social equivalents of predators or parasites. The only way to handle them is to get rid of them just like you get rid of pests.
Narcissism is not a "character" or "attitude" or "behavior". It is a very serious mental illness, specifically a dysregulation of the limbic system that is necessary for many serious traditional mental illnesses like schizophrenia for example. It is also the main cause of predatory and malignant behavior in humans including pathological lying.
Discussion is a interaction with rules. Either you want to abide by the rules or want to bend the rules to your benefit. A binary. No other option. There's a personality that will bend the rules and a personality that will uphold them. That's straight out of individual perception of reality and social networks. Again a binary. All those binaries form the network of networks through which information flows.
So to maintain a healthy community and website centered around an on-topic constructive discussion you have to maintain two elements:
- clear rules of discussion (subject, focus, style) - rules of the game
- lack of narcissistic individuals - predators and parasites
The above rules worked very well on a few discussion boards that I've used over the last 20+ years and from what I can tell the only discussion boards which resisted erosion and entropy are the ones which applied those rules in some form or another.
As for other suggestions mentioned in this thread:
The only thing that results from more moderators is more conflict and instability because moderators determine rules of the game (in game-theoretical sense) and the more moderators the greater the uncertainty (entropy) which causes the system to be less rather than more controlled. This is why growing bureaucracies trend toward inefficiency and inefficacy regardless of how many departments and specialists and surveys they have. It's not "invasion of the normies" that kills websites. Websites which manage with the "core" moderator team even at the cost of not growing proportionally do better than those who grow and have to add moderators. It's the moderators who sink the website, not the users, and the explanation is straight out of cybernetics and information theory. People just confuse the cause with the effect because our intuition is geared toward understanding of interpersonal social cues in small groups, not the social equivalent of fluid dynamics.
The only thing that results from voting systems is mob mentality because vote-based ranking drives narcissists crazy since it feeds directly to their dopamine and serotonin systems. Just look at reddit or twitter. They seem like mental asylums because mentally ill people are being catered to with architecture that is increasingly representing what psychosis is. The userbase is therefore shifting away from healthy people toward unhealthy people. In my experience people who advocate for dynamics that feed into mob mentality tend to have those traits as well. Physical reality is not about popularity. It is about a simple binary - "follows the rules" and "doesn't follow the rules". The people who want to make everything about subjective opinion of other people tend to be people who think their subjective opinion is valid.
This forum here works - at least compared to other websites - because it's more like a library than a market square.
Libraries are about catalogs of books, authors, members and clear and logical order of things and the main thing that is being said outloud there is "shhhhhhhhhh". The rest is up to the users of the library.That's why libraries have been the temples of knowledge and preservers of civilization. Small group of librarians handling huge amount of data and everyone having access but only according to stringent rules. Low entropy.
Market squares are all about being in the center of people's attention and are filled with people screaming things, arguing, selling, buying, stealing and getting pilloried. And it's only a question of time before you have a bunch of know-it-all's screaming to their followers why they should go and kill those people over there on the other side of the market square. Complete chaos. High entropy.
We should want to keep SDF as a library rather than try to turn it into a market square.
And if you are still not convincend then remember that I'm a wizard. I fought Balrogs and sh*t and know a lot about throwing magic rings into volcanoes, flying on mutant eagles and running away from mobs of goblins. Clearly at least some of it is relevant experience.
